These findings led to a series of conceptual and direct replications with mixed results (e.g., Caron et al., 2020 Smith et al., 2019 and Straub et al., 2022). Through their interpretation of these results, the authors theorized that standing improves selective attention on the Stroop task, because standing increases “load” leading to fewer resources being available to process the distracting word. (2017/2018) had participants complete the Stroop task while both sitting and standing they found that relative to sitting, standing was associated with a Stroop effect of a smaller magnitude. This difference in performance between the congruent and incongruent trials – known as the Stroop effect – is thought to indicate a failure of selective attention in which attention is captured by the to-be-ignored word. As has been consistently observed since Stroop conducted his first experiment in 1935, individuals are slower and less accurate at identifying the color of a word stimulus on incongruent trials than on congruent and neutral ones ( MacLeod, 1991 Stroop, 1935). That is, the task requires participants to indicate by verbal or manual response the color of a word stimulus when the color is either congruent (e.g., the word “RED” printed in the color red) or incongruent (e.g., the word “RED” printed in the color blue) with the word itself. During the Stroop task, participants are instructed to ignore the word and focus solely on the color of the word stimulus. The Stroop task ( 1935) is a cognitive task commonly used in the laboratory to capture individuals’ levels of selective attention and attentional control. (2017/ 2018) reignited interest in this topic through their multi‐experiment demonstration that showed how simply standing rather than sitting can reduce interference from irrelevant stimulus dimensions in the Stroop task. (2008) and others (e.g., Bantoft et al., 2016 Ohlinger et al., 2011 Russell et al., 2016), Rosenbaum et al. Also at stake are practical issues regarding which postures might be optimal for information processing in various contexts such as educational and workplace environments ( Harmon-Jones et al., 2011 Koepp et al., 2012 Price & Harmon-Jones, 2010).īuilding on earlier research by Ebara et al. Recent work on this topic finds its roots in the theoretical framework of embodied cognition, which maintains that cognitive processes are best understood in terms of contextualized interactions among the body, brain, and environment ( Matheson & Barsalou, 2018). Since the introduction of standing desks, otherwise known as active workstations ( MacEwen et al., 2015 Torbeyns et al., 2014), there has been ongoing debate regarding whether standing can positively influence an individual’s cognitive performance relative to sitting ( Caron et al., 2020 Rosenbaum et al., 2017/ 2018 Smith et al., 2019 Straub et al., 2022). In all, the current research provides further converging evidence that postural influences on cognition do not appear to be as robust, as was initially reported in prior work. Moreover, our results from Experiment 1 are consistent with two recent replications ( Caron et al., 2020 Straub et al., 2022), which reported no meaningful influences of posture on the Stroop effect. The results from our experiments revealed that, in contrast to Smith et al., the postural interactions were quite limited in magnitude in addition to being only a fraction of the size of the original effects. Our sample sizes had essentially perfect power to detect the key postural effects reported by Smith et al. Here, we conducted close replications of the authors’ three experiments using larger sample sizes than the original work. (2019) found standing resulted in better performance than sitting in three different cognitive control paradigms: a Stroop task, a task-switching, and a visual search paradigm.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |